|
| ▲ | abejfehr 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think it’s much more than 80%, it’s probably the default recommendation and folks who aren’t technical would just accept it. Probably closer to 95% or more |
|
| ▲ | necovek an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Isn't the relative increase more of interest? If someone was only owning 10% of the market, and they've only gotten 8% (percentage points) of the 20%-not-GH LLM-related increase, they'd still be seeing a very similar spike compared to their baseline as GitHub. |
|
| ▲ | gilrain 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Your speculation is that their competitors would naturally not see a commensurate increase in instability while “only” handling 20% of the same crisis? I don’t buy the excuse. I want to hitch my wagon to those “mysteriously lucky” competitors. (And have. And haven’t had similar issues to Github, since.) |
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Competitors would be long tail, so a different mode of traffic entirely. Maybe they get spikes that are more easily whack-a-moled than the constant hammering that GitHub receives. Tough to say as this is all speculative, though. | |
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's probably a threshold thing isn't it? You wouldn't get 20% of the effect at 20% of the traffic. There's a step function in there somewhere. |
|
